If that is the case then you clearly do not understand the laws of chess regarding three fold repetition claims.

In accordance with Article 9.2b since the position has appeared 3 times once you moved Qe2+ on your 63rd move then your opponent on his move is entitled to claim the draw.

There is no such requirement under the relevant artcile which is Article 9.2b.

That does not appear to be the case.

According to the Gary Bekker they rejected the ruling of the arbiter that the game was drawn.

His age is unimportant.

What is relevant is how well all members of the appeals committee understand the laws of chess.

Based on your comments above you clearly do not and hence should not serve on an appeals committee.

Correct. And this is the key point. My opponent clearly does not understand the rules of chess. If he is offering a draw then that offer has to be accepted by me for the game to end, and I never accepted the draw offer.

If he is claiming draw by repetition he has to inform the arbiter that the position is a triple repetition position, which he did not do.

True. And a heated conversation occurs between Ivanov and myself that disturbs everybody and brings the game into disrepute.

I believe their decision is wrong.

It is quite clear that the clock should have nothing to do with the decision. Touch move should stand and furthermore, analysing the game is totally illegal when the game is in progress.

This decision is weak. furthermore it negates the responsibility of the players to play the game in accordance to the rules. I agree that there is such a thing as arbiters discretion and that Gary may be correct here if he so wishes to use that rule.

I would like to make a point here. Imagine if this same scenario occurred in the Championship with both players short of time. Imagine if the person in Ivanovs position did exactly the same thing and let their time run out. I reckon that he would lose on time and the arbiter would then argue that this is CORRECT because his draw offer was invalid. You know it makes sense.

As a side note, some will say that my actions are not in the spirit of the game because this is a Mickey mouse tournament and you can't expect a player of Nicks experience (over 15+ years) to understand the rules.

Why are you such a stupid person who displays time and time again the most incredible inability to understand the most basic of issues in chess?

er.O really?

O really?

They conspired to achieve the same result!

Don't be ridiculous. Of course it is relevant. If his age was unimportant then simply ask yourself at what point would it become important? 14,12,10 or 6 years old?

No. Without wanting to make this sound an attack on James, which it is not, I wish to make this point. If James Morris was the most intelligent gifted intellectual on the planet with an IQ of 200 I would still argue that because he is a minor he should not be on the disputes committee. You would argue that age is not important, I disagree. Never shall the two viewpoints meet. End of story.

Haha Get a clue about what really happened, you ignorant ratings abuser!

I see you are talking about yourself again.
Yes really.
Yes really.
So they were out to get you.
Your paranoia is showing.
As I already said it depends how well they understand the laws of chess.
Agreed end of story as I do not agree with you.
The only one being abusive as usual is you.

the b pawn was poisoned again ,good trap nick very deep.

Bill Gletsos is wrong.
There was no correct draw claim.
Prove there was a 'correct' draw claim or simply be quiet.

cheers,

Therefore the onus is on you to show why Ivanovs' claim was incorrect.

You must tell the arbiter you are claiming triple repetition.

David, why do you want to play on in that position?

One does not have to be Kasparov to predict the final result of this game.

Secondly, Lets say the arbiter and/or the appeals comm. would come from Mars and force Ivanov to play Kg3 ...would you be happy with a victory of such kind?

Wrong.
There is no requirement under Article 9.2b to do so, only in 9.2a.
Article 9.2b applied in your situation, not 9.2a.

Wrong.
There is no requirement under Article 9.2b to do so, only in 9.2a.
Article 9.2b applied in your situation, not 9.2a.

I don't agree. You still have to claim the draw in 9.2b.

Do you have an example from real life that proves your particular interpretation?

Of course you must actually voice the claim but it does not require the arbiter. The claim can be made directly to the opponent.
I have seen it happen many times.

1) Player A makes a move that thats the position for the third time.
2) Player B before touching a piece claims the triple rep.
3) Player A & B shake hands and sign their scoresheets and take them to the officials table and pass them to the arbiter.

Only if Player A does not accept the claim is correct or believes that player B did not follow the correct procedure does the arbiter need to get involved.

In the above scenario if Player A believes that Player B's claim is incorrect or not done in the correct manner then he should inform the player of that fact and then either player A or Player B could stop the clock and summon the arbiter.

It is quite clear in the circumstances that Ivanov could legally claim triple rep after your 63rd move directly to you in accordance with Article 9.2b.

You should have just acknowledged that his triple rep claim was valid.

It appears that your lack of knowledge of the rules led you to reject his claim believing that he could not make that claim since you made the last move or that his claim had to go via the arbiter. Both of these beliefs on your part are wrong.